Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/HistoryBuff

Historybuff (Talk) – Blocks • Deletes • Imports • Moves • Protects • Contribs

The 5 day period for comments on this nomination starts on 06:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC) and ends on 06:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC) (UTC).

Mentor: MichaelBillington (Talk) – Blocks • Deletes • Imports • Moves • Protects • Contribs
Evaluation:

(Due to my absence) HistoryBuff has now been a probationary custodian for almost a month and a half. After reviewing his actions as a probationary custodian, I am more than satisfied with how he has conducted himself. I am fully confident that he has learned enough about custodianship to continue on as a permanent custodian here at Wikiversity. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 06:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion: [1]
Comments:
I support full custodianship and thank HistoryBuff for being willing to help deal with vandals. I have a question for the candidate: How do you feel about protecting pages from editing? You had to delete the same image twice. Should Wikiversity use page protection on repeatedly vandalized pages as was done at Image:Bloot.jpg? --JWSchmidt 12:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't like protection of pages, as its against the wiki way to prevent editing of pages in general. I do feel that semi-protection or full protection are sometimes necesary, and they can be effective if used sparingly. In the Bloot case, it was the first time a serious vandal popped up for me, and there were no other custodians around to ask questions of. I don't recall the exact sequence of events, but I was a bit slower to affect a user block then if the same thing happened now -- probably giving the vandal a chance to use the same open proxy again. I think that even protecting the Image from re-creation would have simply prompted our vandal to use another filename. To be most effective, I think we should study what serial vandals patterns are and try to automate a process which minimizes the fallout. If we can find an effective mechanism to deny the "thrill", they will move on to something else. Historybuff 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support HistoryBuff too. As we're quizzing candidates, how would you approach the issue of User:Fruit engine (his first edit of his user page) - or is there no issue? McCormack 18:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a link spam, no doubt. While this is prohibited in our content space, I don't know if we have a policy about it on our user pages. In any event, since we have "nofollow" on all tags, it isn't adding any pagerank, which is really what linkspam is all about, thus denying the "payback" they are really after. Historybuff 20:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for HistoryBuff! His sparkling personality , quick wit, relaxed disposition and general good attitude equip him to be an excellent custodian. You'll do fine, Gerald! -- CQ 19:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not much to go by with the logs, but when combined with other contributions Wikiversity, everything says Historybuff is 100% fit for the job. Great stuff! --HappyCamper 04:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments

All community comments supported full custodianship for User:Historybuff after a probationary period ending 21 May. The 5 day period for comments on this nomination ended on 26 May 2007. Historybuff became a full custodian on 27 May 2007. --JWSchmidt 14:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]